Esko, do you think that there is still a reason to do Uri-Path-Abbrev at all?
Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > Issue has been presented for discussion at IETF 124, Montreal, in > slides: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/124/materials/slides-124-anima-01-constrained-brski-cbrski-and-join-proxy-00 > It's remarked there that the size savings for the request message is modest. Besides, > * the request only travels over a single hop, so there is no accumulated savings over multiple hops. > * the request fits in a single 6LoWPAN frame anyhow - there's no potential reduction in 6LoWPAN fragments by applying the option. > * the savings in power and reduced RF channel use (for a typical 250 kbps 802.15.4 6LoWAN) for an action only used during onboarding time, are very minimal over the entire device lifetime. > * it would require a constrained device to support the Option -- a JP, as opposed to a Registrar as for the case of cBRSKI where this Option is applied see [link](https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/issues/336). > * a particular profile of cBRSKI, that defines its own discovery methods, can still introduce the option if they need it. > Given all these considerations, it's proposed to *not* require the Uri-Path-Abbrev option for discovery. And not make a text update. > -- > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: > https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-join-proxy/issues/86#issuecomment-3983167615 > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Message ID: <anima-wg/constrained-join-proxy/issues/86/[email protected]> > ---------------------------------------------------- > Alternatives: > ---------------------------------------------------- -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
